The Roman church teaches that when Mary was conceived in the womb she
was kept free from original sin and filled with sanctifying grace. It
wasn't until 1854 that this doctrine became an official teaching of the
Roman church.

It is never sufficient to simply cite a "late date" and leave it at that. It's great polemics and propaganda, but lousy historical argumentation. First of all, it isn't as if the doctrine came out of thin air in 1854. It was believed, by and large, for many centuries. 1854 simply made it dogma at the very highest levels: de fide or ex cathedra (as the Catholic Church has many levels of authority of dogmas).

What must be determined is if doctrines that are defined at much later dates are consistent developments or truly innovative novelties, that have no legitimate historical precursors. The Immaculate Conception is the former, and is a straightforward development of the belief in the sinlessness of Mary, that was the consensus of the Church fathers.

To find doctrinal novelties and corruptions one must go to folks like the so-called "reformers": people like Martin Luther, who introduced (as I have documented) at least 50 novel doctrines in his treatises of 1520, even before he was excommunicated. One can also point to sola Scriptura: the Protestant rule of faith, that was not taught by the Church fathers at all, as I have demonstrated numerous times. Nor can it be proven at all from Scripture. I've written two books about that (one / two). St. Augustine's teachings were Catholic, not proto-Protestant. I devoted an entire book to documenting that fact, too.

This teaching was not established by appealing to the
Scriptures but rather by appealing to "implicit" teachings in the church
fathers.

To some extent that is true, but biblical arguments were also utilized, as in all Catholic argumentation in favor of particular doctrines. It was largely an argument from tradition, but then, this is perfectly permissible on the biblical, apostolic, patristic, and medieval assumption that sola Scriptura is not the rule of faith in Christianity. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both noted many times that a doctrine can legitimately develop from tradition alone, or primarily.

Unlike the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary which
is not contradicted by the Scriptures and which is very strongly and
unanimously taught by the church fathers, the immaculate conception
contradicts the Scriptures and has very weak support among the church
fathers.

It doesn't contradict the Bible at all. Nothing in the Bible denies that Mary was or could have been sinless (like Adam and Eve were before the fall, and like the angels are), nor that she could have been conceived without original sin. It's one thing to assert that there is not explicit evidence of it in Scripture, or perhaps not even much implicit or indirect evidence; quite another to assert contradiction, which is a far greater claim, in need of demonstration.

As for the fathers, well, yes and no. It's not explicitly asserted, but its developmental kernels: Mary as sinless, the new ark of the covenant, and second Eve, all are repeatedly asserted by the fathers. Thus, this question goes back to the issue of development of doctrine.

Even in the middle ages significant theologians like Bernard of
Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas denied the immaculate conception.

We always hear about this . . . First of all, St. Thomas didn't believe that the soul was united to the human body until 40-80 days after conception. He had a deficient understanding of biology and did not hold to the Church's current beliefs about ensoulment (i.e., a soul is supernaturally created by God at the moment of conception). Therefore, he could not have held to the Immaculate Conception as the Church does today, based on this false premise.

Secondly, Thomas believed that Mary was extraordinarily sanctified in the womb: just not at conception, per the above, and particularly sanctified at the time of the conception of Jesus.

Thirdly, he believed that she committed no actual sin. In all these things he was followed by Martin Luther, as I have documented (one / two / three). But none of these things are held by Lutherans today. Thus, St. Thomas was far closer to present Catholicism in this (and Luther) than to Lutherans or Protestants generally. I recently completed my book, The Quotable Summa Theologica, and devoted almost six pages to his teaching in these matters. I won't cite his teaching here, but if this debate intensifies, I'd be happy to produce them.

The
doctrine most likely developed as an attempt to safeguard the doctrine
of the sinlessness of Christ but as Thomas Aquinas points out, if Mary
were sinless Christ could not be her redeemer.

The Catholic Church wholeheartedly agrees that Mary was in need of a redeemer, like all human beings since the fall. She herself calls God her savior in the magnificat. We contend that she was saved by being prevented (by an act of God's grace at her conception) from falling into the "pit" of sin, rather than rescued out of it, as the rest of us are, if we are saved. St. Thomas neglected to draw this distinction, therefore made a fallacious argument (even he could do that on occasion). In this way, the Immaculate Conception is perfectly consistent with Mary's need of a savior, and to be rescued (in a special and unique act of God's grace) from the original sin she would have inherited, like every other human being.
But more recent Roman apologists in an attempt to win over evangelicals
have tried to defend the doctrine immaculate conception from the
Scriptures. On page 178 of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, Dave Armstrong discusses the use of the term "full of grace" and says:

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.

In the book, Armstrong does not treat the above as a direct quotation
from any particular source but he does provide a footnote that says

The book does not cite Blass and DeBrunner as a direct quotation . . .

All correct so far . . .

. . . but if
you search the internet, you'll find plenty of people quoting this as if
it were a direct quotation from Blass and DeBrunner including Dave
Armstrong on his blog.

Sometimes folks utilize my materials incorrectly. I checked out Chuck's assertion that I myself cited it wrongly as well. I did find one 2011 paper where I made this mistake (my book above was completed in 1996). I promptly corrected that and thank Chuck for directing my attention to it. Human errors can happen when one has written almost 2,500 blog posts.

But page 166 doesn't say anything that resembles
what Armstrong is saying here. Blass and DeBrunner simply mention that
the perfect stem is used to denote "a condition or state as the result
of a past action." The passage cited by Smyth says, "Completed action
with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem." None of this
sounds anything like what Armstrong is saying. The passage clearly says
that God graced Mary but it's rather insane to try to derive the
doctrine of the immaculate conception from that.

I love the use of exaggerated, dramatic rhetoric ("insane"). It is also important to note "what Armstrong is saying" in the first place. In my book, I didn't claim that Luke 1:28 and kecharitomene "proved" the Immaculate Conception. Immediately after my words above, that Chuck cited, I wrote:

Thus,
in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications,
the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can
rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.

The Bible speaks only implicitly of many
things that Protestants strongly believe, such as the proper mode of Baptism(immersion, sprinkling, or
pouring?). The Immaculate Conception is entirely possible within scriptural
presuppositions.

The words "consistent" and "entirely possible" are obviously not the same as assertion of outright proof, or demonstration. Since my first book (written over 16 years ago) I have made additional scriptural arguments that are based on explicit texts, having to do with grace and sin. I would love for Chuck to take these on, if he is looking to have a biblically-based discussion of the Immaculate Conception. See:

16 comments:

You say there was a consensus on the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary but as the Catholic Encylopedia even points out Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom all say that Mary sinnned. I could list off quotations from others as well if you need me to. In various places Mary stands as representative of the church and serves as a wondeful example of humble submission to God but the Scriptures also speak of her sin. She is among all those who were inheritors of original sin. There is nothing in the Scriptures that excludes her and if she had no original or actual sin she would not need a redeemer as Thomas Aquinas points out. But of course you are more "Catholic" than he is and perhaps the Catholic colleges will start naming themselves after you. No matter how many church fathers I quote you're still going to claim a consensus even if none of them teach what you are teaching. And the fact still remains that the grammars you cite provide no basis for your grammatical and linguistic claims and I highly doubt you could find a single honest Greek scholar that would agree with your paraphrase. When I have time I will respond to some your statements regarding Luther's "innovations."

You say there was a consensus on the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary but as the Catholic Encylopedia even points out Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom all say that Mary sinnned.

Exactly. "Consensus" does not mean "unanimous." Certainly you could have figured that out. Hence, Dictionary.com:

"1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.2. general agreement or concord; harmony."

I could list off quotations from others as well if you need me to.

No need, since it is a non sequitur, and irrelevant to the discussion.

In various places Mary stands as representative of the church and serves as a wonderful example of humble submission to God but the Scriptures also speak of her sin.

Where?

She is among all those who were inheritors of original sin.

Yes, she would have, had God not acted in an extraordinary way.

There is nothing in the Scriptures that excludes her

"Full of grace" does. You need to interact with the other papers of mine that develop the argument far more extensively and with lots of cross-references.

and if she had no original or actual sin she would not need a redeemer as Thomas Aquinas points out.

Already answered. St. Thomas himself holds that she committed no actual sin. Now you aren't even interacting with my arguments. It's mutual monologue. Very common . . .

But of course you are more "Catholic" than he is and perhaps the Catholic colleges will start naming themselves after you.

Right. It's tempting not to reply at all to such an asinine, ridiculous statement. But in any event, the Catholic Church holds that no person (even the greatest Catholic theologian: St. Thomas) is infallible. I am stating what the Church has said about this matter vis-a-vis Thomas, not merely my own opinion, which counts for nothing (in terms of authority) on its own.

No matter how many church fathers I quote you're still going to claim a consensus even if none of them teach what you are teaching.

This is wearisome. There is a consensus on this matter. The issue of development is a separate one.

And the fact still remains that the grammars you cite provide no basis for your grammatical and linguistic claims

First, you have to understand exactly what I claimed, and what I think any given verse "proves" or suggests. Secondly, my larger biblical case involves cross-exegesis, not just Luke 1:28 by itself.

and I highly doubt you could find a single honest Greek scholar that would agree with your paraphrase.

"Full of grace" is not controversial, seeing that many Bible translations have used it or acknowledged that it is a permissible rendering.

When I have time I will respond to some your statements regarding Luther's "innovations."

I hope you do a far better job than you did here. You interacted with exactly none of my various arguments.

I should add that St. Thomas taught that she was freed entirely from original sin; he just places it at a different time than her conception (i.e., at Christ's conception). Luther later believed exactly the same thing. Hence, St. Thomas:

. . . the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin. (ST 3, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2)

Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes [the weak form of concupiscence] redounded from the Child to the Mother. (ST 3, q. 27, a. 3c)

The second purification effected in her by the Holy Ghost was by means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the Holy Ghost. And in respect of this, it may be said that He purified her entirely from the fomes. (ST 3, q. 27, a. 3, ad 3)

For at first in her sanctification she was delivered from original sin: afterwards, in the conception of the Son of God, she was entirely cleansed from the fomes: lastly, in her glorification she was also delivered from all affliction whatever. It appears (2) from the point of view of ordering to good. For at first in her sanctification she received grace inclining her to good: in the conception of the Son of God she received consummate grace confirming her in good; and in her glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in the enjoyment of all good. (ST 3, q. 27, a. 5, ad 2)

And he holds that she is without actual sin during her earthly life. I have six quotes to that effect in my Quotable Summa Theologica.

He had a deficient understanding of biology and did not hold to the Church's current beliefs about ensoulment (i.e., a soul is supernaturally created by God at the moment of conception).

I of course affirm the IC, but is it correct about ensoulment? I'm thinking of the Declaration on Procured Abortion (my emphasis)

19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

I understand what a consensus is but I don't think you do. You can't find anyone in the early church who taught the immaculate conception and you can find a large number of statements that negate it. The consensus is in the opposite direction. The same fathers who taught that Mary remained a virgin are the same one who claim she sinned. If the idea that Mary was sinless was Apostolic tradition the Apostles forgot to pass it on. If the immaculate conception is Apostolic tradition they were the worst communicators ever. In the church prior to Nicea you only find statements about Mary sinning. Tertullian very explicitly says that Mary sinned. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Methodius, and Lactantius all very clearly state that Jesus is the only one without sin. They make no exceptions for Mary. And there are no dissenters. Name a church father prior to Nicea that says that Mary was without sin. Like many of Rome's teachings, this is another that developed and gained popularity within the period of medieval scholasticism. The church of the Augsburg Confession is the true continuation of the Western Church while Rome is a sectarian group based on medieval fads. You should check out Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent sometime.

I read your other articles on "full of grace" but they show a lack of understanding of Greek language and grammar. Perfect tense has a number of different uses and I don't have any problem with the particular use you chose but you're reading it in a completely foreign way. To "endue" simply means to provide. God provided grace for Mary or probably better God graced Mary. The perfect indicates a completed action with present implications. It can mean the action continues but that doesn't mean it continue infinitely and just because it is a completed action doesn't mean it happened at the time of conception. God said that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb but he doesn't say this about Mary and John was not sinless. You would end up with utter nonsense if you insisted that every time a perfect verb is used in the New Testament it is an action that continues on infinitely in the past and in the future. This is your argument:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

5 does not follow from 4. Grace is God's favorable disposition towards us. You cannot inject grace into someone. We need God's grace to do good works but it does not follow from that to be full of grace means to be sinless especially since the Greek word does not mean full of grace but "graced." Take a look at BDAG some time.

And even if it could be proved that Mary was sinless because she was full of grace at that time it would not follow that she was sinless from the time of her conception.

Just noticed yet another self-contradiction in your analysis (one of many, such as your take on St. Thomas Aquinas, which was atrocious):

Like many of Rome's teachings, this is another that developed and gained popularity within the period of medieval scholasticism.

First you demand proof for sinlessness of Mary prior to Nicaea, which isn't strictly necessary, because many doctrines were less defined in that period (even including the canon of Scripture and much of trinitarianism and Christology).

Then (here's where it gets really ridiculous), you entirely skip over the 4th and 5th centuries: the very height of the patristic period, and want to jump to the Middle ages. I already provided a link in the paper to the fathers on the sinlessness of Mary:

True, these excerpts are 4th century on, but like I said, many doctrines were that way, including many that all Christians agree on. As Cardinal Newman noted, original sin wasn't even included in the Nicene Creed, and there are just a few Bible passages about it. Yet you and I hold that in common.

It won't do to selectively accept many teachings that were only slightly discussed or implicitly mentioned in the pre-Nicene fathers. If you're gonna play that game, you gotta play it consistently, and most Protestant apologists don't.

I have an understanding of the development of doctrine, I just reject departure from the Apostolic faith once and for all delivered. I'm an ex-Calvinist. Calvinist and Roman Catholics are very similar in theological method and both to one degree or the other are heavily dependent upon the medieval scholastic method. The Calvinist doesn't have any problem with the idea that the limited atonement and double predestination were rejected by everyone until the middle ages and the Roman Catholic doesn't have a problem with the idea that the consensus of the early church contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine. They are both continually "progressing" and what is orthodox in one generation becomes heresy in the next. There is no stability or certainty in such a system.

Hi Mr. Wiese: To flesh out my perception on this matter. The dogma of the IC developed in response to heretical attackes on the nature of Jesus and on the notion of original sin itself which was something that arose in the 4th century. However, the dogma was implicit in the writings going back to the 2nd century when the ECF's, starting with folks like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, started calling Mary the Second Eve. Since Eve was created without sin, it was a very small step to argue that as the Second Eve, Mary was preserved in a special way from it by the application of Jesus' salvific act prospectively.

Paul: To say that because the church fathers refer to Mary as the second Eve means that they believe that Mary was created without sin seems quite a stretch especially considering the fact that the church fathers from that era unanimously confess that Jesus is the only one without sin. If context and original consent is not considered there is no end to implications you could draw. Eve was naked while sinless, therefore Mary remained naked while sinless. Since Christ is the second Adam then he was created at a point in time since the first Adam was. Jesus fell into sin because the first Adam fell into sin. This is one of the things that I find the most absurd about Roman Catholicism. It reads its own implications into certain teachings of the church fathers that contradict what is explicitly said by them and then claims to have the church fathers on its side. You said "God bless!" so I'm going to assume you implied that you actually agree with everything I wrote even though you made an explicity statement to the contrary. And since I have been blessed by God and a blessing by God is required for me to be without sin, I must be without sin.

Hello Chuck, please note that I said that the dogma was implicit in what they said about Mary being the Second Eve. Since it was not until the fourth and fifth centuries that the notion of original sin was challenged as well as nature of Jesus which was attacked because he was born of Mary. As a Catholic, I have no qualms about later fathers reading into what earlier ones said. That is how heresies are confronted and refuted.

BTW, when I say "God bless", it is not an affirmation that I agree with you; rather it is an affirmation that I consider you as a fellow child of God and a member of the mystical Body of Christ and offer that little ejaculation that the God who loves all of His children, give you grace to strengthen your faith, give you hope and enflame your love for Him and your neighbors.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).